Whiteson L. Silwamba v Kitwe City Council (Appeal 86 of 2000) [2006] ZMSC 4 (7 June 2006)
Rule 78 is limited to correcting clerical errors or omissions and does not empower the court to review its own judgments; the Appellant's motion was in substance a request for review, not interpretation, and was therefore dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] ZMSC 4
- Parties
- Appellant: Whiteson L. Silwamba; Respondent: Kitwe City Council
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 86 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Interpretation/review of Judgment
- Outcome
- motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Interpretation of Judgment, Clerical Errors, Statute of Limitations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Whiteson L. Silwamba
Appellant
Kitwe City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Interpretation/review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court can review its own judgment under Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules
- 2 Whether the Appellant's motion is for interpretation or review of judgment
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 78 is limited to correcting clerical errors or omissions and does not empower the court to review its own judgments; the Appellant's motion was in substance a request for review, not interpretation, and was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (CIVIL JURISDICTION) APPEAL NO.86/2000 BETWEEN: WHITESON L. SILWAMBA APPELLANT AND KITWE CITY COUNCIL RESPONDENT CORAM: SAKALA, CJ, LEWANIKA, DCJ, MUMBA, JS On 7th March, 2006 and 7th June, 2006 For the Appellant: For the Respondent: In Person No Appearance RULING This is a Notice of Motion by the Appellant pursuant to Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules and seeks an interpretation of our judgment that we delivered on 5th September 2000. The motion is supported by an affidavit. At the hearing of the Motion, the Appellant who appeared in person said that he would rely on his heads of argument and grounds of appeal. A perusal of the heads of argument and grounds of appeal shows that what the Appellant seeks is not an interpretation of our judgment but rather a review of our judgment. Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules provides as follows: 78 Clerical errors by the court or a Judge thereof in documents or process or in any judgment, or errors therein arising from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court or a Judge thereof We have said in the past that this Rule is meant to correct clerical errors or omissions in our judgments and does not permit us to review our judgments. In any case, we had stated in our judgment, which is the subject of this Motion, that the action by the Appellant was statute barred at the time that the Appellant commenced proceedings. This Motion therefore is totally devoid of merit and we dismiss it accordingly. However, having regard to the circumstances of the Appellant, we make no order as to costs. E. L. Sakala CHIEF JUSTICE D. M. Lewanika DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE F. N. M. Mumba SUPREME COURT JUDGE 2